Showing posts with label Humphrey Bogart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humphrey Bogart. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

To Have and Have Not

It is a deep pleasure to watch actors exude cool from every pore.  Bogart, Bacall, and Sheldon Leonard are so cool they force habaneros to jump into an icebox, just to warm up.  The direct opposite of this deep chill is Walter Brennan who allows himself to be mocked in every scene he is in, and that only increases the cool in the other three characters, by contrast.

I hate to say it again, but Howard Hawks is a genius of entertainment.  He can take a Hemingway novel and make it comedic, while not reducing any of the drama.  This film has so much in common with Casablanca, but it is so much better because the tone is less heavy-handed, and the writing is just a little better.  Perhaps Casablanca makes better noir, but To Have makes me want to re-watch it, just out of sheer enjoyment.


The film isn't perfect.  In general, it seems to be a symbol of how France needed America to pull itself out of it's scrapes in WWII, because France is fundamentally cowardly.  Bogart is the epitome of America, rough, hard minded, business-like, and fiercely loyal.  In real life, he wouldn't make a great hero, but in this particular plot, he fits perfectly.  I think he is too mean in Maltese, too comedic in Big Sleep, too underdeveloped in African Queen, but here he is perfect-- tough, but fair minded; smart, and ready to laugh; knows when to be distant and when to be romantic.  This will be one of a couple of my favorite performances by him.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Sexism in Cinema

Originally posted on the Filmspotting Forum


In the last couple days I watched a few movies that caused me to reflect on the relations between men and women in film.


The Chronicles of Riddick
This sequel to Pitch Black is easily more imaginative as the first.  You have a militarized fundamentalist group and one bad guy who is seen as the savior against them, although he has his own motivations.  The universe is more complex than one might expect, and the editing and special effects are quirky and fun (except when they are overblown).   The worst of the film was its characterization of women.  It is a male teen fantasy, more than anything.  The men are tough and fight to prove superiority.  The women are seductive and pursue the strongest men, but the strong men resist the woman crawling over them lasciviously.   I understand it's a fantasy, and a Van Diesel film, but why must we have films that perpetuate this caveman fantasy?  Again, it had a lot of positive points, but overall it left a bad taste in my mouth.


Caesar and Cleopatra (1945)
This is a pretty shoddy adaptation of a fascinating George Bernard Shaw play.  Except for Claude Rains and (occasionally) Vivian Leigh, the acting was horrible.  The physical set up of many in between scenes were awful.  The script, however, shone.  It is about how Julius Caesar comes to Egypt and teaches Cleopatra to be a woman-- not in a sexual sense, for it is clear that Shaw thought Caesar to be too old for Cleopatra-- but instead taught her to be independent and regal.  The verbal play, of Caesar especially, is wonderful, and a joy to hear.  I love Shaw scripts.  Even so, it is clear that the play was written in 1898, and an attitude of "a woman needs a man to teach her wisdom" prevails all the way to the last scene.  A woman can be strong in this movie, but never wise.  That is something that men must teach them.  Foolishness.


In A Lonely Place
I have seen a number of Bogie's films, and only a couple have really stood out to me-- The Big Sleep, Key Largo.  But this one tops them all.  What a charming, lighthearted film with a heart of sorrow and oppression.  Dixon is a screenwriter who has had trouble keeping relationships, especially with women, due to his reliance on violence.  If someone says a bad word about himself or another, he flairs up and begins to get physical.  Overall, he's a good guy-- charming, funny, smart.  One day, he is suspected of murder, and through that gets involved in a relationship with his funny and smart neighbor, Laurel.  Rarely have I seen a better screenplay.  The relationships are perfect: believable and fascinating.  It is all so wonderful until it goes gradually wrong.

Dixon actually has the same immature attitude toward men and women that is displayed in the Chronicles of Riddick: Men fight to prove their superiority, women desire men and should be dominated. 

** Spoiler Paragraph** (and the conclusion of the matter)
 However, by the end of In a Lonely Place it is clear that reality doesn't work this way.  You can't have good relationships with people in modern society as if you were a caveman.  In this way, not only is In A Lonely Place a superior work of art, but it is also morally powerful.  It shows the end of living in a teenage fantasy: frustrated, angry loneliness.  So sad, but so true.  There are many people like Dixon who I wish could learn this lesson before it is too late. 

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Philip Marlowe Wins The Day



I frankly have avoided this film for years.  It’s not that I don’t like Bogie—he’s good for the occasional anti-hero.  But I really didn’t care for The Maltese Falcon and that film and this were strongly connected in my mind.  They were both Bogie noir based on classic detective novels of the 30s.   So if I disliked the one, I should dislike the other, right?

Not at all.  The big difference for me comes in the main characters: Sam Spade v. Philip Marlowe.  Frankly, Sam Spade has few redeeming qualities, and I strongly disliked him.  It must be to Bogie’s credit that just as much as I disliked his Sam Spade, I really enjoyed his Philip Marlowe. Marlowe was funny, smart, laughs easily and is much more enjoyable to spend time with.  And he doesn’t consider violence the first resort, especially in dealing with women.  I appreciate that.



Technical—5/5--In all probability, another aspect I really appreciated about The Big Sleep over MF is the direction in general.  Howard Hawks is one of my favorite directors and I love his dialogue-filled, constantly moving films.  This isn’t as frantic as some of his films, but it certainly has his touch.  Having William Faulkner as a writer for this film couldn’t hurt, either.  The script is smart and the dialogue rich.  And, most of all, the film was humorous throughout, which I didn’t expect, although I should have with Hawks at the helm.


Interest—4/5—Although most of the other characters aren’t as interesting as Marlowe, of course Bacall is fantastic and the plot is interesting.  I can’t say that I was as interested in the mystery itself, but it was fun getting there. 


Tension—4/5—There are some real tense moments in there, especially in a couple of the shootouts and in the involvement of Bacall’s sister.


Characters—3/5—It’s difficult to pinpoint my feeling of the characters of this film.  Frankly, few of them were believable.  They were all movie stereotypes (and I recognize that this film helped to create some of these stereotypes) except for Marlowe, who wasn’t really the hard-boiled detective, or perhaps he was but didn’t always act like it.



Emotional—3/5— Because I didn’t buy most of the characters, their dilemmas weren’t very compelling for me.  Certainly I was tense when someone got shot, but overall it didn’t matter. 


Theme—2/5—I didn’t really catch much of a theme here.


Ethics—3/5—I don’t think the movie is encouraging us to think about ethics, other than the illegality of shooting people for financial reasons.  There is a moment in the DA’s office where Marlowe’s style of solving a crime is held against a police procedure.  The main thing seems to be that Marlowe’s style, although he lies, leaves dead bodies around, spends questionable time with women and sets people up to be shot, but he gets the job done (and he has friends in high places).  That seems to be good enough for the DA, so it should be good enough for us?  Hmmmm.


The real ethical question: Should Bacall be smoking?  In public?

Personal—3/5—I related to Marlowe’s easygoing style, although it is not my own, and I did relate to his use of humor to ease tensions.

A good movie, really enjoyable.  One I will probably watch again.  But it wasn’t so enjoyable that I’d put it in my top 100.